Meeting minutes
<LauraM> ChrisLoiselle - I have to cut out at 10:30 am
Announcements
MaryJo: Work statement has been approved from AG.
The AG WG Chairs have approved our updated WCAG2ICT work statement with no changes.
The PR will be incorporated probably next week after the WAI website update/redesign gets published.
Phase 2 of WCAG2ICT update – work statement
Bruce: May be delayed on work statement update due to third Thursday publish date with W3C
Work on Explainer Document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyei09Viby1bCoZnDLYwY9VWpzRvteK9pqt4v9sWCJE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.wlcptmhola14 ChrisLoiselle]
<bruce_bailey> My apologies for not having already made a pass at the section I volunteered for.
ShawnT: Glossary is good to have. Referencing W3C and WCAG would be great. I can research it further.
MaryJo: I agree. We do need a glossary. I don't think a definition for explainer. We aren't using that as end term.
MaryJo: I think we can point to WCAG and their definitions.
MaryJo: glossary based on outcome of document terms used.
ShawnT: I agree.
chris: "Informative" should be defined in the glossary.
chris: Went through the current informative references list in the document.
… thinks we should add links as we work on the document.
… we're holding off on alternative outlines - especially since we aren't officially making an Explainer.
laura: are we worried about the informative references being just links right now?
… should we add references to the standards?
… and other references such as kiosk, self-service references
ChrisLoiselle: I can work on references.
laura: I can also help populate that section
MaryJo: Tag explainer template can be removed.
… WCAG2ICT Overview does it need to be referenced?
Is WCAG2ICT for topic to be separate?
Bruce: it is one sentence, worth expanding on perhaps.
bruce: (regarding alternative outlines) We may want to expand on "Who WCAG2ICT is for" - one sentence.
maryjo: The "Who develops WCAG2ICT" may also be worth including
chris: we could add that info with a link to our work statement.
ChrisLoiselle: From alternative outlines - who develops WCAG2ICT has a sub-bullet "comments" - what was the intent of this?
bruce: not sure.
ChrisLoiselle We'll leave that part out then.
MaryJo: To Bruce, contact Kevin about IRC drop. They thought they fixed it.
ShawnT: They are still working on issue of drops.
ChrisLoiselle Experienced drops from IRC a lot. Uses IRC Cloud - they have a version you pay for and one you don't. I have the paid for version and it works great.
ShawnT: Textual7 for Mac OS is an application I use for IRC for reference
MaryJo: TAG explainer differs from our document, so could possibly remove as we reference in our work statement.
MaryJo: Technology specific guidance aspect of our work vs. mobile accessibility task force topic. Where to be added? Our document or within theirs?
MaryJo: Spreadsheet on analysis to be done on differences. Perhaps Sam and Phil could assist.
q>
Perhaps single source , WCAG2ICT vs. just mobile.
Talk to JJ after our analysis is complete
ShawnT: I Think that is great. Same spot would be easier.
MaryJo: We can put technology specific notes in our document. That could be one example of technology specific.
ShawnT: ATM machines , perhaps Laura can add in additional context.
Daniel stated it doesn't have a Google drive per se. Its the user's own google drive to save the document. We will follow up with him.